Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/85/2017 on 24 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5315-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSB/85/2017
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Advocate for the
respondents.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Senior Geophysicist
(Surface) in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. He
was removed from service, vide order dated
04.09.2014 by Director, (Human Resource), ONGC.
4. Petitioner filed Departmental Appeal against
said order. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director
dismissed the appeal, which was communicated to
petitioner, vide letter dated 18.06.2015. Petitioner
challenged the order passed by Appellate Authority in
WPSB No. 24 of 2015, which was allowed and order
passed by Appellate Authority was set aside, on the
ground that it is cryptic and Appellate Authority was
directed to decide the Appeal afresh by a reasoned
order. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
thereafter, passed another order on 03.01.2017,
dismissing petitioner's Appeal, which is under
challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner has also
challenged the order passed by Disciplinary Authority.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that
despite the order passed by Coordinate Bench in
2025:UHC:5315-DB
WPSB No. 24 of 2015, Appellate Authority has dealt
with petitioner's appeal in a cursory manner and
dismissed the same by a cryptic order. He submits that
a number of grounds were raised by petitioner in his
Appeal, including non-payment of salary and
T.A./D.A.; enquiry was held at Calcutta and petitioner
was made to travel to Calcutta even though, he was not
getting salary or subsistence allowance. He further
submits that a number of other issues were raised in
the Appeal, which was running into seventeen
paragraphs, however, without considering the issues
raised in the Appeal, Appellate Authority cursorily
rejected the same by a cryptic order. He submits that
entire discussion is in paragraph no. 5 of the order
passed by Appellate Authority and the submissions
made by petitioner were not considered at all in the
said paragraph also. Paragraph no. 5 of the order
passed by Appellate Authority on 03.01.2017 is
extracted below:-
"NOW THEREFORE, after having perused the Judgment of Hon'ble
High Court dated 10.11.2016. I have again gone through the
representation dated 07.11.2014 of Shri Jain along with findings of
the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 20.05.2013, relevant records,
facts and circumstances of the case and applicable Rules and
Regulations of Corporation, the undersigned agrees with the findings
of the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report dated 20.05.2013 and
come to the conclusion that Shri Jain was in habit of labeling
allegations to distract from the fact of his willful and unduly long
unauthorised absence, he has been provided with full opportunity to
present his case by the Inquiry Officer who was Independent
Authority. However, he chose to not to attend the inquiry
proceedings. Shri Jain had opportunity to join his duties after order
dated 08.06.2012 of Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
advising Shri Jain to join his service with ONGC and then demand
for whatever he is entitled, but he chose not to join duties. Thus it is
evident that Shri Jain has deserted his service and was no longer
interested serving in ONGC, and therefore, attracts imposition of a
major penalty prescribed under ONGC, CDA Rules, 1994 (as
amended in 2011)."
2025:UHC:5315-DB
6. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraph no. 5 of
order passed by Appellate Authority only contains the
reason for passing the punishment order against
petitioner, however, the issues raised by petitioner in
his Departmental Appeal, have not been considered, at
all.
7. Law is well settled that the Departmental
Authority while deciding an Appeal against a
punishment order discharges quasi-judicial function,
therefore, he is required to consider all issues raised by
concerned employee and also to deal with the grounds
raised in the Appeal.
8. Since that was not done and the order passed by
Appellate Authority is cryptic, the same is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted
back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the
Appeal filed by petitioner on merits and decide the
same by a reasoned order, as per law, within six
months from the date of production of certified copy
of this order.
(Subhash Upadhyay, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.)
24.06.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046
f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,
CHANDRA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10381
9DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C
E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.06.30 10:05:57 +05'30'
